When companies are heading for the door as fast as they decently can, you have to ask yourself why? President Obama's approach is a rather different one; let's just lock the door and stop them from leaving.

On both sides of the US political divide, America's apparent corporate exodus via so-called "inversion takeovers" is a source of growing concern. However, their response to the problem could hardly be more different. Broadly, Republicans want to deal with the issue by lowering corporate tax rates; but Democrats want to stop the outflow by changing the rules. As things stand, these allow companies to redomicile to lower tax regimes by increasing their foreign ownership. Takeover a foreign company in a shares transaction, and hey presto, job done. Quite a few of these deals have already been done, and many more are being considered. In any case, what with approaching mid-terms and the administration's faintly protectionist appeal to "economic patriotism", this somewhat arcane tax policy issue has suddenly gone mainstream

These companies are cherry-picking the rules, and it damages the countrys finances, Mr. Obama said yesterday. It adds to the deficit. It sticks you with the tab to make up for what they are stashing offshore. I dont care if its legal  its wrong".

Now of course, inversion would not be an issue at all if US corporate tax rates were internationally competitive. They are not. In fact US corporate tax rates are some of the highest in the world. Unsurprisingly, companies have been trying to escape this fiscal prison by redomiciling elsewhere.

“These companies are cherry-picking the rules, and it damages the countrys finances, Mr. Obama said yesterday. It adds to the deficit. It sticks you with the tab to make up for what they are stashing offshore. I dont care if its legal  its wrong”.

Cherry-picking the rules and adding to the county’s deficit...I thought he was talking about the five million illegal future Democrat voters he’s redomiciling for a minute there...

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded  here and there, now and then  are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

Anybody that has studied his background, the background of his relatives, his relationships, his history, and his actions have to come to the same conclusion - the boy was groomed for this from birth. This was all premeditated. No senator with only 3 short terms under his belt and a non-practicing lawyer at that becomes president especially if he’s black. This was all setup. Why would anyone to to law school then become an activist? You’ could even go on and on about how his education was paid for and his identity poblems but it does no good.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.